- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:23:44 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/02/2015 11:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We already have bunch of options to solve T-shaped documents, so I'm
>> suggesting to let authors to choose one. I'm fine to have
>> auto-multicol as one of the options authors can pick.
>>
>> So I see 2 points of discussions:
>> 1. Does auto-multicol automatically helps users, or does it force
>> single option and take flexibility out?
>> 2. If we allow multiple options, which one should be default (or no
>> default and overflow by default)?
>>
>> I prefer multiple options, and default to overflow. But for #2, I'm
>> fine to pick an easy one if preferred and we can reach consensus what
>> the best UX is.
>
> Ah, gotcha. Yeah, overflowing works too, but it doesn't print. I
> think this was brought up at the meeting.
>
> Having this controllable via a property
> ('emergency-orthogonal-overflow'?) could help; at least then the UA
> stylesheet could default it to overflowing on screen and multicol-ing
> in print.
It is controllable: set a height on the element that's not 'auto'.
If 'height' is 'auto', then we know the author's okay with growing
in the block-size dimension. So we wrap columns down instead of
extending outwards. If 'height' is non-'auto' (e.g. if it's min-content,
max-content, fit-content, or some fixed size), then we honor the
'height' and spill off to the side.
~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 02:24:13 UTC